Public Policy change in the Military after 9-11 Terrorist Attacks Essay

Custom StudentMr.
TeacherENG
1001-04
15 February 2017

Public Policy change in the Military after 9-11 Terrorist Attacks

Introduction

According to the expert analysis on September 11, 2001 at 8:45am American Airlines, flight number 11 out of Boston MA, carrying 81 passengers and 11 squad members crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center and detonate into flames. At 9:03am, United Airlines, flight 175, also out of Boston, carrying 56 passengers and 9 crew members stopped into the south tower. Soon after, American Airlines, flight 77, exploded into the Pentagon. United Airlines, flight 93, through the daring acts of passengers, missed its goal, crashing into a field in Pennsylvania (CNN.)

A CNN web page quotes witness accounts of the disastrous scene at Ground Zero, “It just went `bam like a bombard went off. It was like holy hell…” “I saw people jumping off the structure…Everyone were earsplitting, running… people were stampeding, people ongoing screaming that there was an additional plane coming and the second building just blow up.” The first assault ever to be launched on the continental US came not against a military goal but beside thousands of innocent civilians. The death toll subsequent the assault, stood at over 3,400 people, including police, fire, and liberate workers who had lost their lives in the line of responsibility.

According to the expert analysis the day the Twin Towers fell, was the day that Americans lost the sense of safety that comes from living in a state which had never knowledgeable an assault on its own soil, and began living in a state of stable anxiety and misgiving from which many have yet to get better. It was the day our world turns into divided into “us” and “them.” It was the day subsequent to which, Americans sought defense from “them,” and thoughtlessly sought their end.

I memorize standing at he sink that morning, cleaning the brunch dishes, and thinking of how calm the house seemed with my son beginning his foremost year at preschool, and only my youngest kid still at home. Only half listening to morning news demonstrate as I went as regards my morning custom, I heard the broadcaster state that they would be cutting to live reporting of a scene of tragedy in New York City. Turning my concentration to the screen, I saw the primary tower engulfed in flames. Before having a chance to completely register what was happening, I watched in amazement as a plane slammed into the second tower.

As news coverage sustained, the situation, along with my rising sense of upset and nervousness only worsened. I heard observer begin to speculate on the option of a radical attack, watched as the towers misshapen one after the other, and saw the scene of obliteration at the Pentagon, where a third plane had crash. My judgment as I heard the words, “America is under attack. It come into view we are now at conflict…” centered on my family, my four-year-old son and teenage daughter off at schools which now seemed to be a globe away, my three-year-old daughter, silently coloring at my feet, blissfully ignorant of the situation, my husband, a city employee, working in fate; the capitol city now seemed ominous, a unsafe place to be. All seemed terribly susceptible, and I was overtaken by a sense of defenselessness.

though I had voted for Gore in the election, and was extremely dissatisfied when Bush, who had not won the admired vote, won the government, these concerns faded in contrast with concerns over America’s safety, my family’s safety in the wake of the radical attack. In the days, weeks and months that followed, I along with numerous other Americans turned to our President to restore the sense of safety that had been shattered.

Always having been opposite to war, I now much-admired the swift decision to attack Afghanistan. American civilians had come under assault on our own soil, with overwhelming results. Here was a strong President who would do whatever essential to see that the threat be get rid of, to see that our children would sleep in security. George W. Bush, whose right to the Presidency I had gravely questioned, now had my full self-assurance and support. That this emotion was echoed by most of America was confirmation by his soaring endorsement ratings.

At what point did my sightless self-assurance in our President begin to ebb? I do not recall the precise moment, but as I began to hear statements to the consequence of obliterate the infidels, and “if you’re not with us, you’re alongside us,” the fear-induced sightlessness began to lift, and I began to question the course in which our country seemed to be headed.

I listened as people I careful to be liberal and neutral began to use words like “towel-head” in reference to those of Arabic disagree. One morning, I drove to a local expediency store, operated by a man whom I knew to have live elsewhere from India, saw that the front windows were boarded-up, and learned that they had been shattered the night before. When the windows were restored the subsequent week, they displayed a huge poster of an American flag; the man said he was hoping not to be incorrect for an “Arab” again.

Americans, fueled at smallest amount in part, by comments made by a President in whom a vast preponderance had turned to for defense, and leadership in an increasingly unbalanced world, saw anti-Americanism in the Middle-East, and act in response with their own blind hate and narrow-mindedness against every one Arabic people. This chauvinism and fear comprehensive to the support of America’s attack of Iraq, based on accusation put forth by the Bush administration asserting that the country was in ownership of weapons of mass obliteration.

Our president warned of a wickedness ruler who would not be uncertain to use these weapons alongside the people of the United States, were instant action not to be taken. No doubt, this warning was hold up by the further argument that Iraq’s despot, Saddam Hussien had in a straight line lent support to Al-qaeda, the radical group believed to be accountable for September 11.

How could Americans observe this war as anything less than just and essential?

Overpoweringly, Americans gave it along by means of our president their full support. Only some gave much consideration to the fact that President Bush was failing to succeed the support of the United Nations for his proposed assault. There was no accepted demand that more proof against Iraq be obtainable. Our president had our self-assurance. It was we, who had suffered the penalty of September 11, and it would be our state, acting alone if require be, which would guarantee that such an atrocity be banned from happening again.

Not only was well-liked support of this conflict given in spite of the fact that proof presented by the U.S. was not considered believable sufficient by the United Nations to support the issuance of a permission, it was also it seems that given with no thought as to the consequences the responsibility of such great measures might bring. To appreciate the potential scope of these penalty, one have to first look beyond the fear induced by the September eleventh disaster to the underlying reasons behind the anti-Americanism which Americans distinguish as running hazardously high in the Arab world; an feeling that is not devoid of foundation.

In the days following the assault the better part of the earth mourned by means of the American people. Governments and commonplace citizens of all nationalities articulated their sorrow and commiseration for America’s terrible loss. “In Stockholm, people stood exterior the gates of the U.S. embassy by means of long burning candles to articulate their sorrow.

In Berlin, they placed plants at the delegation. Furthermore, Austria’s parliament flew a black flag. ‘We are every Americans!’ editorializes the not-usually pro-American newspaper Le Monde. A Kenyon newspaper remember Usama bin Ladin’s bombing in that country three years ago and affirmed that ‘Few nations will appreciate America’s sorrow as deeply as the Kenyon nation.’ ‘I feel that my heart is contravention when I see it on television.’ said a Chinese.”(Pipes.) But on the streets of numerous Arab countries a very dissimilar feeling could be found.

Even though most Middle-Eastern governments legally destined the attack, many Arab citizens in fact celebrated what they saw as an Arab conquest over the United States. Daniel Pipes, in his article, A Middle-East Party explain the mood in the streets of the Arab globe after 9/11 “…the day’s events encouraged a giant party ‘We’re ecstatic,’ said a Lebanese. ‘Bull’s-eye,’ commented Egyptian taxi drivers as they watched a play again of the World Trade Center collapse. ‘It’s payback time,’ said a Cairene…And so it went around the district. In Lebanon and the West Bank, Palestinians shot guns into the air, a common way of showing enjoyment. In Jordan, Palestinians handed out sweets in one more expression of joy.”

While such comments make it obvious that burly Anti-American sentiment on the Arab Street does in fact exist, an imperative question, ignored by the greater part of Americans, is the basis for its survival. Numerous reasons are given for this hatred of America all through the Arab world together with, spiritual objection to America’s secular culture, anger of American wealth and power, and the feeling that American objectives in the middle-east are direct by a desire to control the area’s great reserves of oil. But the reason given the majority frequently and most strenuously is a bottomless anger of America’s continuing support of Israel.

The injustices apparent to have been supposed on the Palestinian people by the state of Israel from the time of its configuration up to the current are seen as an affront to all Arabs. In an interview by means of Frontline, Rhama Hugira, a Yemen journalist, talks about her anger of America and her rising support of Al Qaeda. She says that even although she is alongside the killing of women and kids, she is growing to see Al Qaeda’s acts as the necessary vengeance alongside a nation that supports unfairness alongside the Arab people.

“I must revenge, retribution. I must revenge. My children ask me, he always asking me, ‘Mama, the Americans kill us. OK, the Americans support Israel to kill us. Why?’ It’s why when Osama to retribution, Sheik Osama bin Laden to revenge. It’s a bad. He revenge since they kill us. We must to kill them.” She says of her seven year old son, “He always cry when he see the Muslims in Palestine or the human right in Palestine. He want to become like Osama bin Ladin. He want to kill the Israel and kill any American support Israel.”(PBS.)

According to the Ron Synovitz, in his best article for Radio Free Europe states “Mideast analysts say anger at the United states is at an unprecedented high across the Arab world, primarily because of the perception of the unfair U.S. policies on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” As well as Eric Black of the Star Tribune declares, “They resent the United states for its alliance with Israel, which they see as vital to Israel’s ability to continue occupying Palestine.” An assessment of U.S support of the state of Israel, from its very beginning, shows that the Arab people are not completely unfounded in these sentiments.

Prior to WWI much of the Arab globe, counting the area that now create Israel in addition to the borderline Palestinian territories was proscribed by the Ottoman territory. Throughout the conflict the British promised the Arabs their self-government in return for their support in defeating the Ottoman Empire. In contradiction, though, were promises made regarding the same country to the Zionists seeking to establish a Jewish state on the site of Biblical Israel. This promise was officially stated in the English Balfour statement of 1917, which stated, “His Majesty’s government sight with favor the institution in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their most excellent endeavors to make easy the attainment of this object…”(Richman.)

From the time of the initial Jewish resolution in Palestine, Petach Tiqva, recognized in 1878, succeeding waves of Jewish immigrants sustained to flow into Palestine. At the time that America began its support of Israel by means of the backing of the Balfour Declaration in 1920, Jews encompass only 12% of the population of Palestine by means of land ownership standing at only 3%. It is significance noting that in 1919, prior to America’s backing of the Balfour statement, the first Palestinian National Congress in Jerusalem discarded Balfour and made a call for self-government. (Brief History)

Under the government of Harry Truman US support for the formation of Israel sustained to grow. By 1939, the British government, which had been dwell in the region since the end of WWI, in an effort to put an end to growing aggression among Palestinians and Jewish immigrants issued the White Paper. This document essentially imposed limits on Jewish immigration to Palestine, limitations on sustained land acquisitions, and the ultimate organization of a self-governing Palestinian state.

President Truman, who was “for myself moved by the disaster of the Jews”(Richman.) rejected the White Paper in April of 1946, as well as called for “unrestricted mass departure and land acquire by Jews in Palestine”(Chronology.) World estimation at the time, following the horrific events of the holocaust, fell on the side of President Truman, and the requirements of the White Paper were never put into consequence.

Between 1940 and 1945, extra than 60,000 additional Jewish settler had settled in Palestine. The Jewish people now symbolize 31% of the total inhabitants, and land ownership had risen to 6% (Chronology.) Also on the rise was the disagreement sandwiched between the Arabs and the Jews in the district. By 1947, the British, powerless to find a solution to the complexity, turned to the United Nations for help.

In September of 1947, a particular committee of the United Nations set up to deal by means of the Palestinian difficulty, proposed a plan to divider Palestine into the two divide self-governing states of Palestine and Israel. The plan, which was powerfully supported by the US, provided for 57% of the area as a Jewish state, and the remaining 43% for an Arab state. Considering the fact that the Jews symbolize only about one third of the total inhabitants, and only regarding 6% of land ownership, it is not surprising that Arab nations powerfully objected to the plan. Yet US support of Partition was consequently burly that it “insistently promoted it in the middle of other members of the United Nations”(Richman.)

This strong US support of a plan rightly seen as disgustingly unjust by the Arab world began a long tradition of supporting Israel at the expenditure of the Palestinians, thus fostering Arab bitterness. President Truman was warned alongside supporting Partition by “the majority of the State Department and other foreign policy experts, who were concerned regarding US relations by means of the Arabs…”(Richman.) Loyd Henderson, the State Department’s leader of Near Eastern affairs “warned that divider would not only generate anti-Americanism but would also necessitate U.S. troops to enforce it…”(Richman.) In light of modern events, this forecast has turned out to be extremely precise.

Notwithstanding such warnings, President Truman, because of his before mentioned personal beliefs, and also due to political weight continued to support Partition. Political force came in the form of Jewish entrance hall groups, as well as others who felt that U.S. colonization quotas since the 1920’s had kept numerous European Jews from coming to the US leaving them to turn into victims of the holocaust.(Richman.)

Under U.S. heaviness, the UN voted in favor of divider on November 29, 1947. Although the plan was somewhat amend to comprise “56.5% of Palestine for a Jewish state, 43% for a Palestinian one as well as internationalization of Jerusalem” (Brief History.,) Arabs still saw it as intolerable to have such a lopsided amount of their land taken from them. Subsequent to the vote was passed Arab legislative body walked out of the meeting.

Amid the argument surrounding the UN vote for divider, aggression among the Palestinians as well as the Jews shoot up to the point that both sides began to ready themselves for armed disagreement. Jewish privileged put forth a demand that 17-24 year olds have to enlist for military service, and the Arab League began to send martial volunteers and arms to the Palestinians. Multiple skirmishes followed by means of loss of lives piling up on together sides, but with Jewish forces gradually gaining country.

Many would quarrel that a policy of retaliation has been organization in the form of the war on Iraq. No one could quarrel that the American people enmasse have risen up in complaint of this action. Blinded by our fear of violence, we seem to have developed a strong chauvinism against Arabs as a whole. Those residing inside this country are frequently treated with misgiving and fear, and those living inside the Middle East are simply the opponent. They are not consideration of as mothers and fathers, husband as well as wives, people who desire, as do we, to live their lives in calm and safety. They are the “infidels.”

They are the terrorists that came to our country and shattered our sense of safety. They are the annoyed Muslims who hide in the mountains and plan ways to bring about our termination. We do not care why it is that they hate us, it is sufficient that they do. And so we carry on to allow our government to considerably fund the Israelis, and close our eyes to the anguish of the Palestinians. We raise no complaint alongside the US occupation of Iraq, and close our eyes when Iraqi civilians are killed by anxious, encounter weary American soldiers.

According to the expert analysis, it is not only our right as American citizens to ask the question “Why does anti-Americanism flourish in the Arab globe?” it is our liability both to ask such a query and to seek the answers. Having turn into informed, we have to then ask ourselves, “Is US foreign policy plateful the situation?” If we discover the answer to be the unenthusiastic, than it is our accountability to effect modify.

This modify will not come rapidly, it will not come easily. It will not bring the instant approval of triumphing over our enemies that viewing the campaign of “shock and awe” brought to numerous Americans. But with endurance and compassion this modify can come, if we, as Americans stand up and say, as Yitzhak Frankenthal and many additional Israelis have, “It is enough! The circles of violence have to now be brought to an end!” If we stand up, as the Israeli pilots and additional soldiers have and say, “We will no longer be a part of the domination.”

Even though the people of Iraq, living under the rule of a tyrant, had no say in actions take on by their government, we, as Americans, living in a democratic system, do have a say, and as must go after, a blame for the actions take on by our government. When Palestinian children are killed by weapons offer by the US government, we are responsible.

When an Iraqi family grieves the loss of loved ones killed in the conflict, we are accountable. When an Iraqi child loses his father to a “dubious incident” involving American soldiers, we are responsible. And when the sense of hopelessness and misery cause these people to experience that their own lives are value forfeiting to avenge these injustices by lashing out beside their attacker, then too, we will bear liability.

References

“A Brief History of Palestine.” 20 May 1995. Palestine-Net. 28 August 2003. <http://www.palestine-net.com/history/bhist.html>